2003 (4) TMI 315 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for goods manufactured by the appellant.
2. Interpretation of registration and licensing under the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951.
3. Applicability of para 4(b) of Notification No. 175/86-C.E.
4. Validity of the Assistant Collector's findings in various Orders-in-Original.
5. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s interpretation and application of the term "registered" under the IDR Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for the Benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E.:
The primary issue in these appeals is whether the appellant, M/s. Capstan Meters (India) Ltd., is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for the goods they manufacture. The appellant availed of the exemption from 1-3-86 to 30-10-87 but was later asked to pay the duty short paid during this period after the notification was amended by Notification No. 244/87-C.E., dated 30-10-1987. The Assistant Commissioner denied the benefit and confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,97,311.97p. The appellant's classification list claiming exemption was also rejected, leading to further demands.

2. Interpretation of Registration and Licensing under the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951:
The appellant argued that they were licensed under the IDR Act but not registered as an SSI unit with the Director of Industries of the State. They contended that they were not a factory registered under the IDR Act with the DGTD, thus qualifying for the exemption under para 4(b) of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The Assistant Collector initially held that the appellant was not registered with DGTD, but later, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellant was indeed registered under the IDR Act, thus not eligible for the exemption.

3. Applicability of Para 4(b) of Notification No. 175/86-C.E.:
The appellant relied on para 4(b) of the notification, which provides that the exemption is applicable to a factory other than those registered under the IDR Act with the DGTD. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted the benefit of para 4(b) for certain periods but held that the findings regarding the unit's registration status were not maintainable. The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the revenue's challenge was solely on the ground that the appellant did not satisfy para 4(b).

4. Validity of the Assistant Collector's Findings in Various Orders-in-Original:
The Assistant Collector's findings in Order-in-Original Nos. 19/89, 23/93, and 63/93 were subject to various appeals and writ petitions. The Rajasthan High Court directed the Assistant Collector to consider the eligibility for Notification No. 175/86 for a specific period, resulting in a favorable order for the appellant. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside this finding, leading to further disputes.

5. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s Interpretation and Application of the Term "Registered" under the IDR Act:
The Commissioner (Appeals) interpreted the term "registered" under the IDR Act to include both registration and licensing. He held that the appellant, holding a license under Rule 7 of the Registration and Licensing of Industrial Undertaking Rules, 1952, was effectively a registered factory under the IDR Act. This interpretation was upheld by the Tribunal, which found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s interpretation that the term "registered" under the IDR Act encompasses both registration and licensing. Consequently, the appellant, being licensed under the IDR Act, was considered a registered factory and thus not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The appeals were rejected, and the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) were upheld.

← Previous Next →